As an American Muslim, when I look at Rep. King’s background and previous statements, it seems to me that Rep. King is an Islamophobe, and that what he is proposing is not an attack on radicals (of whatever persuasion) but an attack on American Muslims in general. I am very concerned about where this might take us as a nation, and will follow this developing story and provide updates.

What makes this all the more concerning is a recent Washington Post article “Top Secret America” which includes the information that “‘Top Secret America’ includes hundreds of federal departments and agencies operating out of 1300 facilities around this country. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet-the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built-at a cost of $3.4 billion-to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people. With nearly 2,000 private companies that are sub contracted in all, there are now 850,000 Americans with top secret clearance.” The Department of Homeland Security to the extent that it is influenced by people like Rep. King may limit our civil rights. As Javeed Akhter has pointed out: Few are aware of the magnitude of this secret intel. It is legitimate worry that parts of an operation this large and diverse and secret may get out of hand and start affecting civil liberties of all Americans. I am not aware of any congressional hearings on it. Also no moral authority in or out of office has taken on the media for their reckless stereotyping of Muslim Americans.

Also of concern is the fact that the hearings according to a page on the Homeland Security Committee website, are to be called Hearings on Islamic Radicalization. The title makes it clear that this is not a question of how to prevent some Muslims from becoming radicalized, but rather what it is about Islam itself that leads to radicalization.

What the hearings are called and the language used really do matter. The U.S. Government recently issued a statement asking that government officials be cautious in their use of language as it may actually be against the interests of the U.S. to use terms that connect the religion of Islam with the acts of criminals. The governments suggests the use of more accurate and non-inflammatory language. A recent Homeland Security Report even sharply rebuked John McCain’s ‘Islamic Extremism’ rhetoric.

In 2008, the U.S. State Department approved new counterterrorism lexicon for diplomats. The report, “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication,” offers specific directives, such as: don’t use terms such as “jihadist” or “holy warrior” because it legitimizes bin Laden’s followers, but also don’t use terms such as “Islamo-fascism,” which offends everyone else by associating Islam with fascism. You can view the full report here. UPI reports “Urging officials not to use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, the guide notes that, “Although the al-Qaida network exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate political organization, both terrorist and criminal.” Instead of calling terror groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist—“widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”

A report entitled TERMINOLOGY TO DEFINE THE TERRORISTS: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AMERICAN MUSLIMS was considered by the State Department in preparing their report. The PDF of this document can be read here. From the conclusion of this report: “Words matter. The terminology the USG uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology. Instead, USG terminology should depict the terrorists as the dangerous cult leaders they are. They have no honor, they have no dignity, and they offer no answers. While acknowledging that they have the capacity to destroy, we should constantly emphasize that they cannot build societies, and do not provide solutions to the problems people across the globe face.”

As Salam al-Marayati of MPAC has saidDropping religious labels] denies Al-Qaeda and its affiliates the religious legitimacy they severely lack and so desperately seek. For years, Muslim public opinion has decisively turned against Bin Ladin, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups because of the immoral, unethical and gruesome tactics they employ and because the vast majority of their victims have been other Muslims. ... one of our strategic goals should be to empower the authentic and mainstream Muslim voices that are working on a daily basis to counter the cult of death, which groups such as Al-Qaeda call to. By removing religious labels from describing the terrorists, we empower and embolden those mainstream voices and deny the terrorists from making a religious claim. This is precisely why in 2008 a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) internal memo circulated amongst government agencies directed government officials and diplomatic staff to consider the implications of using “Islamic” language when discussing terrorism-related issues.

Originally, these hearings were slated to begin in February, but they actually began in March of 2011.

UPDATE Rep. King has now held five hearings. Here is the TAM collection of articles dealing with all aspects of these:

On TAM we have published a number of articles on Rep. Peter King’s Hearings and related U.S. government and military hearings and training that most American Muslims consider to be Islamophobic: TAM has an article The American Muslim Community and Rep. Peter King’s “Islamic” Radicalization Hearings which has a great deal of background on Peter King and these hearings, which includes an extensive article collection. We also have a series of articles breaking down various aspects of the hearings.

In the past, Rep. King openly supported the IRA. As Justin Elliott notes in his article The Republican congressman who supported terrorism: “If “IRA” were replaced with “Hamas,” the sort of fundraising King did would these days earn you a lengthy prison sentence for material support for terrorism.” Alex Massie points out”... King presents himself as a hawk on security issues who, like so many so-called conservatives, is an enthusiastic supporter of torture and, should it prove necessary, nuclear weapons. Listening to King talk about al Qaeda, you could be forgiven for thinking that he’s the terrorists’ most implacable enemy. Which would be funny if it weren’t such a sour joke. For years, King, who represents a chunk of New York’s Long Island, was in fact the terrorists’ best friend. King wasn’t merely an apologist for terrorism, he was an enthusiastic supporter of terrorism. Of course it was Irish, not Islamic terrorism that King championed. So that’s different. Right? For decades, King was one of the keenest, most reliable American voices supporting the Irish Republican Army during its long and murderous campaign. According to King, the terrorist movement was “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland.” In Northern Ireland, the conflict was drily referred to as “The Troubles.” But that understatement hides the brutal nature of an ugly, squalid conflict during which more than 3,600 people were killed. Republican terrorists were responsible for more than 2,000 of these deaths. The scale of the carnage was such that, on a per-capita basis, a comparable conflict in the United States would kill 700,000 Americans. And King was at the heart of it: In the 1980s, he was a prominent fundraiser for Noraid, the Irish-American organization that raised money for the IRA and was suspected of running guns to Ulster. Indeed, King’s rise to prominence within the Irish-American movement was predicated upon his support for the IRA at a time when New Yorkers were softer on terrorism than they are now. Noraid helped win King his seat in Congress, making him, in some respects, the terrorists’ Man in Washington. King is not the only government representative who appears to be unaware of who is and is not a terrorist, and who has had questionable connections with terrorist groups. Tim Murphy reports: King isn’t the only conservative who says one thing and does another when it comes to material support. Last month, a panel of Bush-era luminaries—Rudy Giuliani, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey—traveled to Paris to speak at a conference in support of Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian Marxist group that’s opposed to the Ahmadinejad regime but has landed on the State Department terror list (the designation cannot be challenged in court). Because the event’s organizer, the French Committee for a Democratic Iran, was formed to build support for the MEK, Cole says the trio’s advocacy constituted a clear breach of federal law.

(Note: as Robert Wright has pointed out “Representative King, who shares the Weekly Standard’s grave suspicions about Rauf, supported the Irish Republican Army back when it was killing lots of innocent civilians. He raised money for the I.R.A. and said it was “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland” and praised the “brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry” and in various other ways backed this terrorist group. If Rauf’s past looked like King’s past, there would indeed be cause for concern.”)

King’s IRA connections were of enough concern that as M.J. Rosenberg has reportedIn 1984, “the Secret Service listed him as a threat when President Reagan made a trip to Nassau County to watch a Special Olympics event.”

Rep. King wrote a novel “Vale of Tears” in which he seems to grasp the concept that terrorism might be a problem, no matter its source, as the product description on Amazon reads: “In King’s fictional two track style of creating a fictional future and flashing back to actual events in history, he places Congressman Sean Cross at the center of international terrorism, this time coming from the (sic) radical Islam in cahoots with the Irish Republican Army.”

On the Laura Ingraham radio program, King was asked what would have happened if Jared Loughner had been a Muslim, and he responded: “The first statement [from the left after past instances of Islamic terror] was we have no right to judge an entire community by one person. This is a deranged gunman who in no way reflects what Islam stands for, and it would be terrible if Americans tried to even look at Islam as being responsible for this. It would have been a total defense of Islam, a total isolation of this person as an individual acting by himself, and an implied attack on anyone that would even question whether or not his religious beliefs were involved.” Perhaps he needs to speak with Sarah Palin about her attack on anyone that would even question whether or not inflammatory rhetoric might encourage violence, and why only the deranged gunman is responsible.

King said“The enemy is Islamic terrorism. It’s not an amorphous extremism….It’s Islamic terrorism which opposes the very fiber of what we stand for”

King made comments suggesting that American Muslims don’t cooperate with authorities. He said “85 percent of American Muslim community leaders are an enemy living amongst us” and that “no (American) Muslims cooperate in the war on terror”. Back in 2004 King said on the Sean Hannity program “I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists…Those who are in control. lThe average Muslim, no, they are loyal, but they don’t work, they don’t come forward, they don’t tell the police.” In 2006 King, sent two letters to several thousand, mainly Jewish, constituents in New York’s 3rd Congressional District. The letters condemn American Muslim leaders, including those at ICLI, for “failing to unequivocally denounce Islamic terrorism.” The letters also point out that leaders of ICLI, a Westbury-based mosque founded in 1985, are supporting King’s Democratic opponent in the upcoming election.

He has been a vocal opponent of the Cordoba House. King said regarding Cordoba House “It’s a house of worship, but we are at war with Al Qaeda.”

Unless you believe that all Muslims are somehow supportive of or connected with Al Qaeda, that is one colossal non sequitur. Most Muslims are at war with Al Qaeda.

In 2004, King said: “The fact is while the overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding people, on the other hand 100% of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today.” King used this inane comment to back his support of profiling of Muslims.

This is a meanlingless comment. Of course 100% of Muslim terrorists are Muslims. The question is, what does King plan to do about the majority of terrorists - who are not Muslims?

Rep. King said On Frank Gaffney’s radio program on January 11th that Muslims Aren’t ‘American’ When It Comes To War. King’s willingness to appear on Gaffney’s program may say something about King’s biases. As Sarah Posner notes: “Gaffney has been peddling the bogus claim that shari’ah law represents a real threat to the Constitution, and has called on Congress to “investigate” that as well. He employs someone who believes being Muslim should be criminalized. He brought that dog and pony show to Capitol Hill late last year for the benefit of House staffers, and spoke to a room of about 50 people. It surely is a deeply troubling development that King is cavorting with Gaffney and pontificating about the “Americanism” of American Muslims, in light of Gaffney’s agitation about fifth columns of shari’ah proponents bent on undermining the Constitution.” (More on Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy Sharia report here, here, here. Lee Fang at ThinkProgress has noted that even the Conservative Political Action Conference has frozen out King’s interviewer, Frank Gaffney, for being a “crazy bigot.” Gaffney Still Fearmongering About Sharia In U.S. here

KING’S INFORMATION SOURCES & COLLEAGUES

When asked where he gets his information about Muslims King mentions doubtful sources: “Hannity asked King to confirm he was saying 85 percent of mosques in America are “ruled by the extremists.” “Yes,” he replied, “and I can get you the documentation on that from experts in the field. Talk to a Steve Emerson, talk to a [Daniel] Pipes, talk to any of those. They will tell you. It’s a real issue … . I’ll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us.” (More on Emerson here and here and a number of responses to Emerson here. Numerous responses to Daniel Pipes’ claims here)

Rep. King defended Pamela Geller and called her a “credible spokesperson”. (More on Geller here, here, and here)

According to ACT for America’s Orlando site: “The many Senators and Congressman & Women who support Act for America (e.g. Michelle Bachman, Peter King, Sue Myrick, Bozeman, Franks who spoke to us at our National Convention in D.C. this past month.” More on Sue Myrick and ACT here. More on the The Anti-Muslim Congressional Mafia here. More on Brigitte Gabrielle, the head of ACT here. Many have questioned whether ACT is educating or fear mongering.

Regarding the Iraq War King said: “We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction, consistently violated UN resolutions and in a post-9/11 world no American president could afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.”

It has been announced that Rep. Peter King will be the first guest on Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America’s new television program.

I don’t believe that it is possible for King to send a clearer message about his intentions for the upcoming inquiry. Every American Muslim should get ready for that “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Muslim” question. Let’s just hope that those Halliburton Internment Camps aren’t being refurbished. Here’s a little background on Act for America and it’s founder, Brigitte Gabriel who said“If a Muslim who has—who is—a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day—this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.” Brigitte Gabriel has also stated: “America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.” She also said “between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism and also said of the “Arabic world,” that they “have no soul.” She said “a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.” She saidIf you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world. This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting.” More on Gabriel here, here, here, here, and here.

We have now added advertising to help cover TAM's expenses, however we strive to avoid all inappropriate content. By clicking "ads by google" you can report problematical ads and help improve the system. If you have further comments or concerns regarding the ads, contact us.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this webpage do not necessarily reflect
the editorial position of The American Muslim, nor can the American Muslim
be held accountable for these views.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed an interest in said material
for research and educational purposes.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.